When did the 3-fold repetition and 50-move rule come about? The 1954
Reinfeld book "How to be a winner at chess" gives perpetual check, but
not these two rules. Of course, with 3-fold rule, the perpetual check
rule is not needed (also you don't have to judge whether or not a
position is perpetual check). The 1970 book by Harkness has these two
rules, but not perpetual check. So did they replace perpetual check
between 1954 and 1970?
--
Replace you know what by j to email

Jud McCranie wrote:
When did the 3-fold repetition and 50-move rule come about? The
1954 Reinfeld book "How to be a winner at chess" gives perpetual
check, but not these two rules. Of course, with 3-fold rule, the
perpetual check rule is not needed (also you don't have to judge
whether or not a position is perpetual check). The 1970 book by
Harkness has these two rules, but not perpetual check. So did they
replace perpetual check between 1954 and 1970?

Not to be picky but I suspect that whether `they' replaced perpetual
check between 1954 and 1970 depends on who `they' a the USCF and
FIDE often have significantly different opinions about details such as
these.

When did the 3-fold repetition and 50-move rule come about? The
1954 Reinfeld book "How to be a winner at chess" gives perpetual
check, but not these two rules. Of course, with 3-fold rule, the
perpetual check rule is not needed (also you don't have to judge
whether or not a position is perpetual check). The 1970 book by
Harkness has these two rules, but not perpetual check. So did they
replace perpetual check between 1954 and 1970?

Winter dates threefold repetition to London 1883:

The problem is Reinfeld was not a tournament official. Perpetual check
has been claimed to be a draw for a long time. The rule never existed.
The only time a perpetual check is a draw is by 3 time repetition.
Many players know some of the rules but not the exact rule.
Reading rulebooks by non TD's can be a source of entertainment (if
your a Tournament Director)
Terry

On 04 Apr 2007 12:51:52 +0100 (BST), David Richerby
wrote:
Not to be picky but I suspect that whether `they' replaced perpetual
check between 1954 and 1970 depends on who `they' a the USCF and
FIDE often have significantly different opinions about details such as
these.

Thanks. The 1970 edition of the book by Harkness mentions that
perpetual check is not a rule, in a kind of vague way that makes me
think that he had more to say about it in an earlier edition.
--
Replace you know what by j to email

wrote:
Not to be picky but I suspect that whether `they' replaced perpetual
check between 1954 and 1970 depends on who `they' a the USCF and
FIDE often have significantly different opinions about details such as
these.

Thanks. The 1970 edition of the book by Harkness mentions that
perpetual check is not a rule, in a kind of vague way that makes me
think that he had more to say about it in an earlier edition.
--
Replace you know what by j to email

I looked in the "The Offical Blue Book and Encyclopedia of Chess"
copyright 1956. Page 51 states the old rule covering draw by perpetual
check has been abandoned. A player who can subject his opponent's King
to an endless series of checks can force a third repetition of the
position and claim the draw.
I was wrong on this one.
Terry

On 8 Apr 2007 23:07:24 -0700, "
wrote:
I looked in the "The Offical Blue Book and Encyclopedia of Chess"
copyright 1956. Page 51 states the old rule covering draw by perpetual
check has been abandoned. A player who can subject his opponent's King
to an endless series of checks can force a third repetition of the
position and claim the draw.

OK, so it must have been a rule at some time before 1956. Thanks!
--
Replace you know what by j to email